TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

It becomes all the more obvious you two are just throwing out bull when you say things like that. 'Is time logarithmic' isn't even a well defined question. Logarithmic with respect to what?!. The function \(t = y \ln x\) is logarithmic in x but linear in y. To say something is logarithmic means that it scales like the log of some other variable or quantity.

Do you even know any Riemannian geometry? If you struggle to grasp what a metric is then Riemannian geometry is going to be out of your reach.

That's a very weak argument. I could claim I'm responsible for ending the war in Angola just because I once shook the hand of a black guy. Tenuous to say the least.

Given what I've read you saying I fear that you have not helped to explain Einstein's work to people you've helped to explain your misinterpretation of Einstein to people. Given your work has never been peer reviewed and you show a great many misconceptions about things relating to it (like metrics) you have no way of knowing if the things put forth in your book reflect Einstein's work at all. I suspect you have not cured people of their ignorance but infected them with yours.

So because something is hard its not worth doing?

If you got your work passed peer review and into journals and it sparked interest you'd be able to publish through academic channels with ease. I'm sure there are a great many highly technical books on theoretical physics which have circulation numbers of under 10,000 because they are aimed at such a specialist area.

Trust me, it doesn't. It's that your ignorance and inability to comprehend is exasperating. Even in this thread you've shown you don't know what a metric is yet you claim you've written a book which explains Einstein's work to laypersons. If you don't know about metrics then you have no understanding of the details of Einstein's work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
2) Is time logarithmic? ”

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Certainly in accordance with my interpretation of the space-time continuum, yes, time (is motion) inherently accompanies(the accelerating expansion of) space; both of which are therefore proceeding logarithmically (as 'space-time') ”

AlphaNumeric:
It becomes all the more obvious you two are just throwing out bull when you say things like that. 'Is time logarithmic' isn't even a well defined question. Logarithmic with respect to what?!. The function is logarithmic in x but linear in y. To say something is logarithmic means that it scales like the log of some other variable or quantity.

Kaiduorkhon:
QW is referencing a defined standard with which you are apparently unfamiliar. That standard is the bonded manifestation of 'space-time'. '4-D space' is logarithmic - a variable quantity relative to past and future; therefore time is logarithmic - a variable quantity relative to past and future. (Refer 'time dilation', from pages 120 thru 128, and, the Golden Rectangle on p. 230.)


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
My simplified illustration of the structure of accelerating space-time does not take into consideration the accelerating shape that actually accompanies it, which is more Riemannian, and furthermore curves back upon itself (while simultaneously growing ever larger) to create and maintain a torus shaped system. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Do you even know any Riemannian geometry? If you struggle to grasp what a metric is then Riemannian geometry is going to be out of your reach.

Kaiduorkhon:
The quality of metric is not pointed here. The structural configuration (shape) is; such as that also depicted in the standard illustration of the Smith (radio frequency) Chart.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I am also suggesting that it's entirely possible that my work influences people who care not to accredit me (my work) with having been their inspiration. ”

AlphaNumeric:
That's a very weak argument. I could claim I'm responsible for ending the war in Angola just because I once shook the hand of a black guy. Tenuous to say the least.

Kaiduorkhon:
It's a very strong argument - had you shaken the hands and distributed germane books to ten thousand and more black guys; especially if they interacted with other black guys about it - many of them representatives of various governmental and bureaucratic agencies.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
On the other hand (with regard to what I have accomplished), I am happy to own a parcel of uncounted complimentary letters from lay readers, thanking me for introducing them to a non mathematical interpretation of (especially) Einstein's work(s). ”

AlphaNumeric:
Given what I've read you saying I fear that you have not helped to explain Einstein's work to people you've helped to explain your misinterpretation of Einstein to people. Given your work has never been peer reviewed and you show a great many misconceptions about things relating to it (like metrics) you have no way of knowing if the things put forth in your book reflect Einstein's work at all. I suspect you have not cured people of their ignorance but infected them with yours.

Kaiduorkhon:
The above paragraph reflects many misconceptions about things relating to proofs that my work does in fact reflect Einstein's work, repeatedly, while always basing these reflections on the same premise (matter is a field of accelerating expansion, having no distinct boundaries and becoming ever more tenouous in the future - compared to the present, and, ever more dense in the past - compared to the present).


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
But major publishing companies receive 50,000 and more unsolicited manuscripts per month. It is not unreasonable therefore, to anticipate the book's projected popularity on a national basis. They simply can't evaluate the incoming information. ”

AlphaNumeric:
So because something is hard its not worth doing?

Kaiduorkhon:
The sequence of the sentences in that paragraph have been changed to read... 'the books were placed on a consignment basis and consistently sold out. It is not unreasonable therefore to anticipate the book's projected popularity on a national basis.' As it was intended to be written and sequenced - in that paragraph - in the first place. Thanks for your having brought that sequential error to my attention.

AlphaNumeric:
If you got your work passed peer review and into journals and it sparked interest you'd be able to publish through academic channels with ease. I'm sure there are a great many highly technical books on theoretical physics which have circulation numbers of under 10,000 because they are aimed at such a specialist area.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It bears mentioning here that I am also of the qualified opinion that my work intimidates professional people. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Trust me, it doesn't. It's that your ignorance and inability to comprehend is exasperating. Even in this thread you've shown you don't know what a metric is yet you claim you've written a book which explains Einstein's work to laypersons. If you don't know about metrics then you have no understanding of the details of Einstein's work.

Kaiduorkhon:
Metrics are conditional. Non-metrics are non conditional.
Your indifference to the geometric definition of spatial dimensions liberates you from the discipline of confining interpretations of dimensions to the limitations of solid geometry. A one dimensional geometric straight line has no depth anymore than a geometric plane. Conditional space - beyond length and area - doesn't begin until there are at least three (perpendicular) coordinates of spatial measurement (enabling the measurement of volume). The fourth perpendicular is the (moving) projection of the three recognized dimensions of space at right angles to themselves. To speak of a one dimensional line - with or without a loop (what space does the 'loop' transmit itself in?) - as though it exists and influences anything, is prominently absurd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is worth pointing out to the community that AN is now taking exception to something that makes perfect sense in the context of the thread and the book. Why is he doing that? Obviously it is an unprofessional, ill informed, ego driven effort that confirms my characterization of him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's worth pointing out to the community that this is total bollocks (although I suspect the community already knows this).

 

Putting yourself in with AN is a career mistake. He shows low professional standards, large hind quarters, is stricken with a large and uncontrollable ego, is pretending to be the center of attention while effectively living and working with people who recognize those things, and who must make him the butt of their jokes behind his back. You want that?

 

AN is a very smart guy. Just because you are too stupid to realise this is not AN's or my fault.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What you're doing is completely pointless. You aren't advancing our understanding of anything and neither is Kaiduorkhon. It's all nothing more than an ego trip for you and it's hypocritical for you to accuse AN and others of being egotistical. We have proved that we can do what we do, whereas you've never even close to shown that. What you do is no more useful than the all the dribbling that gets done in the local asylum.

 

You are making the same mistake that school kids make when they text their personal pics and inappropriate communications. Your posts, like the texting and emails that they send each other are there forever. Thinking you are anonymous or that your posts somehow go away is the same mistake that they make. Your posts, effectively abandoning ethics and the professional standards, have to be taken seriously by potential employers. A new niche business is being staged to capture these things and provide them as part of background searches.

For example, a supposed professional who is on record in 2009 that it is impossible for the universe to have always existed because if time was infinite we could never get to the present. You remember saying that and do you stick by it. Since this thread takes the position that time could be infinite you come out to defend your statement.

And this gem:

And you call me stupid? Take your criticisms of me to this link

 

I am also on record as stating that if you are able to provide a logical argument why I am wrong I will happily admit that I am wrong. You haven't given one and seem to like resorting to this nonsense point scoring, where I have apparently said something stupid but you can't say why.

Pathetic...

 

You have brought up this argument on several of my threads and I have turned them over to your trolling and given you free hand to defend yourself after the moderator closed the Zeno thread where you were trolling with that same claim. You have never succeeded in making any sense out of saying it is impossible for the universe to have always existed. My position and response to your ignorance is at the link to the Zeno thread. Go there if you feel you have made your case. Take your issues about our past chats to this link.

Personally, if I were you I would distance myself from the issue but apparently you still think you are right.

 

As I understand it, this argument pivots on a proclamation that 'it is impossible for the universe to have always existed'.

A non existent universe would of course include a non existence of time.

I will not digress to adjectives like 'nonsense', or 'stupid'. On the other hand, let us be reminded of the law of Conservation of MassEnergy, which resolves that no form of energy can be created or destroyed. This law is tantamount to proving that the collective universal contents, in one form or another, has always existed.

Since there is no known condition of a perfect vacuum, and, since there is no known condition of Absolute Zero (the cessation of all large and small motions), and, since motion and time are synonymous, the conclusion from these observations is that there always has been, and always will be: matter, energy, motion 'and' time.

The scenario for an infinite Past, Present and Future, follows; from a physicaly expanding universe as presented here:

An Expansive 4-D Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:
The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.

Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...

It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1041 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.

The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1041 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...

Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes - the approximate shape of a lily>).

The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.

When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...

Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...

Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).

The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.

When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.

There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.

Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.

Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.

The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.

This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.

It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.

 

I don't start threads where I try to convince people my personal view of the universe, which is at odds with rationality, is the one to follow, you do.

When you have to invent narrative for the life of someone you don't know it shows you're desperate. I don't deny I can be a little wacky in real life and friends find it funny but I'm known for being a little eccentric, not egotistical. Friends in the office ask me for help with work which they know I've got some experience with because they know I'm happy to help.

My behaviour online and my behaviour in real life are fairly different. But then I tend not to come across people like you much in real life.

My signature on another forum is

"The views in the above post are those of its author and not those of the people who educated him through a degree and masters or those who currently supervise him during his PhD, have collaborated with him to write papers and pay him to teach and mark undergraduate mathematics and physics courses. Any insults, flames or rants are purely the work of the author and not the institutions of which he has or is or will be affiliated with."

My posts are criticisms of people's knowledge, their willful ignorance, their inability to grasp logic, their misinformation about mainstream work and their complete failure to grasp salient points. Now I'm sure I do it with a little bit more gusto then might be expected in day to day life but I am not lying when I make my criticisms. I am not inventing things like your claim I said I wished you dead. Twice. That's an abandonment of 'ethics'. I argue with people about the validity of their scientific claims and I do it by pointing out flaws in their logic, misconceptions in their understanding and mistakes in their knowledge. The fact you seem to be on the receiving end of such things more than most is not a sign of 'fixation' or 'lack of ethics', it's a sign you're often mistaken.

When everyone says "You're wrong" the logical course of action is to ask yourself "Am I wrong?", not state "No, it's everyone else which is wrong!" and then steam on regardless.

I make no claims that my behaviour here is professional. I can be extremely professional when dealing with people who are often wrong, often lack knowledge and struggle with understanding. My students like me. I'm patient, polite and fairly amicable. I would never behave to them as I do to you but then you are utterly different from them. You have vno wish to listen or learn or understand, you just want to tell other people your narrative of the universe and to be slapped on the back for it. And you start throwing around things like "unprofessional" and "unethical" because I tell you as much. None of my students turn up and simply say "Question 4 is wrong because electromagnetism is obviously the 5th dimension!" and simply repeat that endlessly. If they did I'd point out they're wrong and explain the model. If they continued I'd ask them why they come to a help class if they just want to tell me their world view. If they continue I'd politely ignore them.* I am paid to teach and so I'd teach the rest of the class. I am employed in such a capacity as a representative of my university and I behave as such.

Here I do not mention my university in discussion but it is known to some. I don't mention it because I am not here in a professional capacity in any way, shape or form. I am here as me. I don't behave unethically and while I might be rude at times I don't say anything worse than "That's bullshit" or "You're an idiot". Generally it takes me a few posts to size up a new poster's attitudes and I adjust my responses accordingly. I corrected BenTheMan last week on chemistry, politely. I corrected you last week, bluntly. Ben listened, you didn't.

When you show the same attitude as my students I'll treat you as such.

Yes. When you have evidence otherwise, please let us know.

*I know of a case where a geology student was a hard core Christian and a young Earther and kept telling the supervisor the rocks couldn't be millions of years old, only 6000. The supervisor said either to shut up or get out because either way he'd carry on.

 

Your are fixated on me and my threads and I have set up a thread to deal with your comments and criticism here, link

 

Thank you for acknowledging my questions and for answering from the perspective of the book and your proposed model. I would be interested in AN's view of Hawking's "no-boundary proposal" too if you think the topic can is appropriate, re. your spacetime model for comparison. I know AN better that he knows himself so let's see if he ignores this.

Thank you for confirming my impression. I still have about 100 pages of the book to go but as I read it I am focusing carefully and thinking about where you are coming from. It isn't hard to visualize.

From your recent comments about reactions to your book, I can confirm that it is interesting, thought provoking and offers a perspective that I have not encountered before in regard to cosmology. I am looking forward to completing my reading and coming back to ask for some specific explanations.

 

In post #111, AlphaNumeric says (in the middle of a paragraph):

None of my students turn up and simply say "Question 4 is wrong because electromagnetism is obviously the 5th dimension!" and simply repeat that endlessly. If they did I'd point out they're wrong and explain the model.

Kaiduorkhon:
In accordance with the perpendicular standards for determining one dimension from another, matter is 4 dimensional, electricity is 5 dimensional and magnetism is 6 dimensional. I do not at any time proclaim that 'electromagnetism is the 5th dimension!'
(Let alone, with an exclamation point.)

Incidentally, the identification of electricity and magnetism as the 5th & 6th dimensions respectively, is unpredecented. Apparently it's not been recognized before, due to the alleged 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable' 4th dimension, which - as long as it goes unrecognized - prevents realization that, whatever may move perpendicularly out of it (electricity) is the 5th dimension. Etceteras.
That is to say, among the many achievements of my work is the conceptual discovery and identification of the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism.

 

Except you never listen to any criticism.

And you keep throwing around 'fixated', hoping that you'll convince people I am fixated on you. You'll notice that I didn't mention you at all in this thread till after you started posting. More than 40 posts in. And when I do reply to you, as if perfectly valid after you join the thread of your own accord, you request I keep all comments about or to you in your thread, which I'm ignoring because its a waste of time. I ignore you till you join the thread and then I get accused of being 'fixated' with you? Come off it, are you that desperate you'll just keep saying it? Of course when you make such replies as this I don't rise to them and I ignore you. Still fixated?

You'll notice I reply to a lot of cranks a lot. The fact almost no one else replies to you doesn't mean I'm fixated on you, it means you're starved for attention. If I post 100 times in a day to 10 different threads and 10 of those are the only replies anyone gives you that day it doesn't mean I'm fixated, it means no one gives a woot about your nonsense. The fact I interact with you more than anyone else is not a reflection on me but a reflection on you. Aside from Prom, myself and Guest no one replies to your threads and we just point out your mistakes. Must be depressing for you. I guess that's why you resort to such desperate attempts at insults and have to make up lies.

No you're not. You just want to have someone who actually knows GR give the impression you aren't just a pair of hacks.

It's funny you call me egotistical yet you invent claims about me and my life. The only person you've talked to who I've met in real life is Prom and yet you're so damn sure you know how my friends treat me. I notice you ignored completely my comments about that in my last post. What's the matter, can't admit you're having to simply fabricate your own delusions of my life to make yourself feel better? You talk about professionalism and ethics and in the same post assume you know all about me. It's not insulting to me because its transparently such utterly hypocritical and pathetic behaviour you do nothing but reflect badly on yourself, not me. And you do so wish you knew me better than I know myself but you don't know me at all. Like I said, I behave differently online than I do in real life. Yes, I have no problem admitting I'm one of those people who is more aggressive online than in real life. So you don't know me at all.

You talk about ego yet ignore it in yourself, Kaiduorkhon, Pincho Paxton and anyone else who doesn't say "You're wrong" to you. Pure hypocrisy. You want someone to be fixated on you because it means you're not an insignificant hack, just like all the other hacks online. Too bad you mistake the few posts I make in reply to you as 'fixation'. I post in other threads and on other forums. And when not online I don't think if you or any other hack at all, other than to laugh about with friends, friends who you don't know but you like to make claims about. You claim to know me by my forum posts so if we are working on the principle of "By his forum posts shall you know him" then, quite frankly, you might wish to take a good long look at yourself. Or do you think lying, on two separate occasions, that I wished you dead was both professional and ethical?

Please, answer that question. If you just mass quote and reply with a single line than I'll take that as you being unwilling to admit the answer. But then you do that a lot.

 

I have replied to every one of your comments on the thread that I have been linking you to.

 

Thanks for making my point for me. Didn't you read the last line? I'll ask again :

Or do you think lying, on two separate occasions, that I wished you dead was both professional and ethical?

You've called me unprofessional and unethical in both threads so answering here keeps the conversation all in one place. In fact, I don't care where you reply, just reply. Or are you unwilling to admit you've been precisely the thing you accuse me of?

 

link

 

Provide a link to a specific post where you say whether or not your false accusation, on two separate occasions, that I have wished you dead were 'ethical' and/or 'professional'. Simply linking to that thread doesn't answer the question because this is the first time I've asked you it. And this kind of evasive behaviour is as you always so, linking to your Google.doc and saying "Answer is in there!" but when I ask where you just link again and again.

If you have nothing to hide, stop being evasive. Isn't it a little unprofessional

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Remember, you're trying to take the high road and claim I'm unprofessional. It hardly helps you if you behave evasively and avoid direct questions, now does it?

 

link